SRA: No lasting damage
A solicitor who emailed an opposing litigant after they instructed lawyers and made baseless threats of perjury against them has been rebuked.
Joseph Rahim accepted his misconduct in a regulatory settlement agreement published last week by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA).
Mr Rahim used to run the personal injury team at Wilmslow law firm PRHS Solicitors (formally Philip & Robert Howard Solicitors) but left the firm as a result of these events.
He was acting for his client in court proceedings. In June 2023, the court ordered the defendant – who was a litigant in person at the time – to pay Mr Rahim’s client damages and costs.
Following the judgment, the defendant instructed solicitors, who sent Mr Rahim a notice of acting.
Nonetheless, he emailed the defendant directly a fortnight later, stating that the defendant had committed perjury and that, if he failed to pay the damages, he would inform the court of the perjury, which could result in the defendant facing up to seven years imprisonment.
The agreement recorded that the defendant did not pay, and still has not paid, the damages to date.
Mr Rahim admitted emailing the defendant knowing he was represented and that the email contained “unsubstantiated allegations and threats that the defendant had committed perjury”.
The solicitor accepted he had no evidence to support that contention, and “it was sent with the intention to make the defendant pay the damages promptly”.
His actions damaged public trust and confidence in the profession, the SRA said.
In mitigation, Mr Rahim pointed out that he did not have any prior adverse regulatory history, the conduct was an isolated incident, and he had shown “insight and remorse”.
The SRA decided that a rebuke was the appropriate outcome, noting that there was “no lasting harm or impact”.
“A rebuke is appropriate to maintain professional standards and uphold public confidence in the solicitors’ profession and in legal services provided by authorised persons. Any lesser sanction would not provide a credible deterrent to Mr Rahim and others.”
Mr Rahim also agreed to pay costs of £1,350.
